XProc: An XML Pipelining Language

, Oct 11, 2006

An XML Pipeline specifies a sequence of operations to be performed on one or more XML documents, producing one or more XML documents as output. Steps in the pipeline may read or write non-XML resources as well.

XProc is currently a W3C working draft. Despite the involvement of Norm Walsh, whom I greatly respect, I wonder whether we actually need another programming language with the worst possible syntax.

On October 19, 2006 10:21 PM, Norman Walsh said:

We need it because without it we have no interoperable way of passing around XML documents for processing. I can send you an ant script, except maybe you don’t have Ant or even Java installed. I can send you a Makefile, except maybe you don’t have make or are on a platform that doesn’t have make. I can send you … well, you get the idea. Small. Declarative. Simple. Interoperable. That’s the plan.

As for “the worst possible syntax”, I’m afraid that’s likely to be a matter of opinion. But it’s not impossible to imagine that an alternate, compact syntax for XProc might be devised.

On October 20, 2006 8:52 AM, Stefan Tilkov said:

But if I send someone an XProc script, I assume they have an XProc processor in place … I believe there are two questions I have: the first one is whether XML pipeline processing is something that can be (and should be) described in a generic language, such as Python, Java, or Ruby, or whether it’s a good candidate for a DSL. I’m a DSL fan, so the I would probably agree that the answer is yes. As to the “worst possible syntax” thing, I did not intend to criticize the specific XML language, rather the usage of XML in the first place.

On November 30, 2006 3:26 PM, Norman Walsh said:

You’re right about assuming they have an XProc processor. I hope that XProc processors quickly become as ubiquitous as XSLT processors. One of my strongest design goals is to keep it small and simple so as to maximize that possibility. I hope we see implementations in Python, Java, and Ruby (and C and PL/I :-) so that it’s easy to use regardless of your platform of choice.

As for XML, well, I have the polar opposite view. I think an XML pipeline language that wasn’t expressed in XML would be (almost) entirely pointless.

On November 30, 2006 8:03 PM, Stefan Tilkov said:

As for XML, well, I have the polar opposite view. I think an XML pipeline language that wasn’t expressed in XML would be (almost) entirely pointless.

Why? I know you’re using RELAX, I assume you’re using RNC as well. I believe the issues are very similar — maybe it’s just a question of priorities, whether to do the compact syntax first and then do the XML as an interoperable and easily parseable interchange format, or vice versa?